Kavanaugh is criticized for following the Heller precedent too well.
...
Gun control is a favorite issue of California Senator Dianne Feinstein, who challenged Judge Kavanaugh at Wednesday’s confirmation hearing for following the Supreme Court’s Heller precedent too literally for her political tastes. The 2008 Supreme Court ruling struck down a Washington, D.C., ban on handguns. The district then banned so-called assault weapons including semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15. In D.C. v. Heller (2011), Judge Kavanaugh dissented from his appellate-court colleagues by arguing that the rifle ban is unconstitutional.
...
This upsets Ms. Feinstein, who wants to ban semi-automatic rifles, and so she asked Judge Kavanaugh "what evidence or study did you use" to determine that assault weapons were in "common use"? Mr. Kavanaugh replied: "Semiautomatic rifles are widely possessed in the United States. There are millions and millions and millions of semiautomatic rifles that are possessed, so that seemed to fit common use."
Americans across the country use semi-automatic rifles for hunting and self-defense—so many that Dick’s Sporting Goods reported weaker revenue last quarter after stopping sales of assault-style weapons. But according to Ms. Feinstein, the fact that large numbers of Americans buy and use these weapons doesn’t mean they are in common use.
"Common use is an activity," she said. "It is not common storage or possession. It is use. So what you said was that these weapons are commonly used. They are not." In colonial times long guns and rifles were commonly kept and carried to be used to defend against tyrannical government and billigerents. By Ms. Feinstein’s Second Amendment interpretation, nearly any gun could be banned since they spend more time in storage than "use."
= new reply since forum marked as read
Use: (noun) the action of using something or the state of being used for some purpose.
}}} (verb) take, hold, or deploy (something) as a means of accomplishing a purpose or achieving a result; employ.
Once one's view of the use for a gun is only to kill, it's a logical consequence that guns not in use for killing are not "in use" at all.
This leads further to another harebrained conclusion: all guns used by criminals in the commission of murder and attempted murder are the ones which we can point to as being in the most "common use" being killing. This is because criminals are the Americans who do the most killing (after those who cut funding for medical benefits and the actions of unmanned aircraft in the Middle East and Africa.)
Therefore, (Reductio ad absurdum,) the very cases gun laws hope to prevent or statistically reduce are those which such laws (by the Senator's reasoning) have the least influence by type and function of the weapon in question.
OTOH, when use is viewed in light of the RKBA, which is the real topic, the right to keep and bear for legitimate purpose should never be contingent on having to employ on a regular basis.
